Emerging Leadership and Nomenclature: Part 1

Introduction to this series of thoughts:

To many people, the concepts of leadership and nomenclature have little to do with each other. But I have realized that the two are intimately connected. In fact, for emerging generations who are very sensitive to labels, titles, and names, nomenclature is constantly being considered. Even the very carefully conceived concept of "emergent" as a conversation demonstrates this important connection between nomenclature and concept formation. Another case in point: look at a list of church names who are part of the emerging conversation (Imago Dei, Solomon's Porch, Jacob's Well, The Center, One Place, etc). These carefully chosen names are not only meant to reflect the values of the community, but to shape them as well. I'll talk more about nomenclature, especially as it relates to leadership, in my second post. In this post, I want to talk out loud about leadership and the emerging church.

Again, I'm just going to be "talking out loud" here. I struggle for a picture of what spiritual leadership can/should look like in the church of the 21st Century. The original, ancient church (Israel) was governed by tribal leaders, older men mostly (I assume). There would be wise heroes who would lead by example and gain admiration and "authority" by acting boldly, decisively, and wisely, during the time of the judges. Then came the Kingdom, with all the bureaucracy that that entails. Again, mostly dominated by men, who either inherited their power, earned it through war, or gained influence through wisdom.

What was leadership like in the New Israel, the church of Jesus Christ? Again, it is difficult to say how they actually functioned. But it seems that there were prominent, gifted men who led by example and went about the known world encouraging and preaching. Local communities of believers apparently had groups of elders (also called pastors, shepherds, bishops, presbyters) who were anointed and led the community. Of course, in a male-dominated society with well-established social and communal hierarchies, this form of communal leadership made sense, and would have been a natural state, neither forced nor artificial. Throughout history, it began to be more common, and even expected, to have one leading voice, one top dog (so to speak) oversee the community. Often supported by a council of some sort, this main leader would be the face (and voice) of the community. This is very much the model of leadership in most modern churches. And it makes sense in a modern mindset, where objectivity and reason are thought to lead to inescapable conclusions, ultimately leading to a saving faith. It makes sense, in this mindset, to have one voice, usually a well-trained (translation - seminarian) individual who can reason well, knows his or her facts well, and can articulate a mechanistic formula for continued survival and growth. This often involves overseeing a corporate-style institutional staff of people hired to accomplish specific tasks. The modern church looks very much like a large corporation (very generally speaking).

But emerging generations are more egalitarian. They are more persuaded by the communal voice than the single voice. "Knowledge" is fluid, and facts are readily shared. So emerging churches often emphasize the communal nature of decision making. They want to emphasize the diversity of its leadership, and its more horizontal structure.

I hope to explore this interplay of modern and postmodern leadership ethos in my next post.